Search results

This case examines the April 2007 decision of British music company EMI to suspend its annual dividend as the company struggled to respond to the effect of digital audio distribution on its core business. The EMI case is intended to serve as an engaging introduction to corporate financial policy and themes in managing the right side of the balance sheet. The case contrasts EMI's storied success with artists such as the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, and Norah Jones with its recent inability to succeed in financial markets. In light of takeover threats and restructuring costs, EMI's CFO Martin Stewart must recommend EMI's dividend policy.

This case focuses on ethics issues arising from the tobacco trade. Government as regulator of that trade and guardian of public health faced complex political, financial and ethical issues in discharge of its responsibilities. The harms resulting from tobacco use were well-known and had generally attracted adverse decisions from governments everywhere. The company offering tobacco products for sale, Carreras Ltd., had generally continued to do well financially despite those adverse decisions. Government, in the present case, had introduced legislation to penalize tobacco use in public places, and in so doing, raised several ethical issues such as punishing smokers for using a legal, widely distributed product; classifying cigarettes as harmful to health yet allowing its wide distribution and sale; continuing to derive substantial tax revenue from sale of a harmful product; enabling Carreras to profit from sale of said harmful product; offering little help to smokers to break their nicotine addiction. Students should be asked to identify and recommend solutions to the ethical issues faced by: the government and its “point man”, the Minister of Health as they sought to reduce the public’s use of a harmful product. The smoker who may be even addicted to a product is known to cause or contribute to a host of serious diseases. Students were to identify and recommend solutions to ethical issues faced by the players in the case. One of these players was Carreras whose operations were facing severe regulatory and public relations headwinds. Another was the nonsmoking public whose health was put at risk even though they did not use the product. The sentences could be reworded to read; Carreras, in its continued efforts to justify selling a harmful product. Nonsmokers who, despite not using the product, suffered adverse health consequences because of its use by others.

Cigarette smoking has been linked to a long list of serious diseases including several cancers, cardio-vascular disease, pulmonary ailments and stroke. Despite several government actions over the years to reduce cigarette smoking, it remained widespread and continued to take a heavy toll on public health. The government’s latest gambit, the Public Health (Tobacco Control) Regulations introduced in 2013, represented the first legislation specifically designed to restrain smoking in “public places”. Carreras Ltd., a subsidiary of British American Tobacco (BAT), had been the only significant provider of cigarettes in Jamaica for several decades and in the period allocated for public feedback, mounted a fierce assault on the Regulations, and galvanized other private sector interests to join in that effort. The case addresses the interaction between government’s roles as guardian and financier of public health, the public’s right of choice, and a company’s right to sell a legal product, albeit one deemed harmful to public health. That government derived substantial tax receipts from trade in that product added another layer of complexity to the matter. The Minister of Health, Dr Fenton Ferguson, was the government’s point man and our protagonist.

Final year University students of Management would have been exposed to ethics theories. Many management courses do not devote enough effort to the study of the interplay between the ethical, financial, and legal and the issues that can arise therefrom to complicate decision-making. The case was structured to invite exploration of this interplay.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 11: Strategy

The case describes the structure of Infrastructure Investment Trusts (InvITs) created and launched in Indian markets in 2017. Besides introducing InvITs and their potential role in relaxing the financing constraint created by the lack of an active corporate debt market in India, the case can help in analysing why the market is discounting the IndiGrid unit price relative to its issue price. It also offers an opportunity to value IndiGrid's Patran acquisition.

Quintiles Transnational Holdings Inc., the largest global provider of biopharmaceutical development and commercial outsourcing services, grew its revenue at a CAGR of 7.3% and EBITDA at 13.9% between 2008 and 2012.

The case is set in December 2012–April 2013, when the majority of the firm was owned by founder Dennis Gillings and four private equity firms (Bain Capital, TPG Capital, 3i Capital and Temasek Life Sciences) after it was taken private in a management-led buyout in 2003 and a subsequent buyout in 2008. Five years after the second buyout, the private equity firm owners were looking to monetize their positions and considered different strategic alternatives: M&A sale to strategic or financial buyers, IPO, or capital restructuring through special dividends.

Students will step into the role of an associate at the lead investment bank working with Quintiles. They must consider the case information and determine an IPO strategy, process, potential conflicts, and valuation.

After reading and analyzing the case, students will be able to:

• Apply valuation techniques (discounted cash flow (DCF) and publicly traded comparables) in pricing an IPO

• Analyze the roles of different parties involved in the transaction

• Discuss the process of a company filing for an IPO

• Evaluate different strategic alternatives available to a private equity—backed company

• Address conflict of interest in management—led buyouts

Apply valuation techniques (discounted cash flow (DCF) and publicly traded comparables) in pricing an IPO

Analyze the roles of different parties involved in the transaction

Discuss the process of a company filing for an IPO

Evaluate different strategic alternatives available to a private equity—backed company

Address conflict of interest in management—led buyouts

This case is one of a pair of cases used in a merger negotiation. It is designed to be used with “British Petroleum, Ltd.” (UVA-F-1263). One-half of the class prepares only the British Petroleum (BP) case, and one-half uses this case. BP and Amoco are considering a merger, and are in the process of negotiating a merger agreement. Macroeconomic assumptions, particularly forecasting future oil prices in an uncertain environment, and assumptions about Amoco's ability to reduce exploration and production costs make Amoco's future cash flows difficult to predict.

This case is one of a pair of cases used in a merger negotiation. It is designed to be used with “Amoco Corporation” (UVA-F-1262). One-half of the class prepares only the Amoco case, and one-half uses this case. BP and Amoco are considering a merger, and are in the process of negotiating a merger agreement. Macroeconomic assumptions, particularly forecasting future oil prices in an uncertain environment, and assumptions about Amoco's ability to reduce exploration and production costs make Amoco's future cash flows difficult to predict.

The case focuses on two major challenges in deal making in emerging market economies---deal sourcing and negotiation---by focusing on a real (but disguised) Indian private equity deal. In 2010 Surya Tutoring was a fast-growing tutoring academy for high school students aspiring to gain admission to the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). Surya’s CEO, R. K. Sharma, wanted to expand its reach beyond Kota (a city of 1 million people in the northern state of Rajasthan), which had become the center of the IIT prep school industry and home to tens of thousands of students studying for the rigorous IIT entrance exam. Sharma knew there was vast untapped potential in the teeming Indian metropolises of Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, and Bangalore, as well as in foreign markets such as Dubai and Australia. Sharma had received term sheets from two private equity firms willing to finance Surya’s expansion. By the end of the month he needed to decide which to accept: the offer from big bulge bracket fund Blackgem, or the one from ZenCap, a small Indian firm based in Mumbai with which he had become intimately familiar during the past year.

After analyzing and discussing the case, students should be able to:

• Identify the differences between the United States and an emerging market such as India when it comes to deal sourcing, negotiation, and financial contracting

• Value a growth equity transaction in an emerging economy, including financial, contractual, and qualitative (social networks, local knowledge, trust) aspects of the deal

Identify the differences between the United States and an emerging market such as India when it comes to deal sourcing, negotiation, and financial contracting

Value a growth equity transaction in an emerging economy, including financial, contractual, and qualitative (social networks, local knowledge, trust) aspects of the deal

A senior analyst has recently completed an on-site visit to the Las Vegas properties of MGM Mirage. She must value the enterprise after her preparation of projected financial statements. Assumptions for these statements come from a combination of standard account relations delineated in the case and from specific company projections that must be gleaned from MGM's MD&A. This case introduces students to pro forma financial statements and their relevance to cash flow and earnings-based valuation. Tools relevant to spreadsheet modeling can also be introduced. The case precedes MGM's announced acquisition of Mandalay Bay Corporation in 2004.

This case is based on the IPO of the first Infrastructure Investment Trust (InvIT) in India that was based on a portfolio of operating toll roads. InvIT enabled the construction company, which was also the sole equity investor, to release part of its equity to future toll road investments. The case describes the structure and functioning of the InvIT. It requires participants to assess its future potential for providing long term financing to not only toll roads but also other infrastructure projects.

This case is taught at the University of Virginia McIntire School of Commerce in the fourth year course, “Corporate Restructuring.” The case is suitable for advanced undergraduates or MBS students that have already completed a course in corporate finance or valuation. The material would fit well in a second Corporate Finance class, particularly if the instructor would like to devote some time to discussing financial distress and restructuring. It could also work well in a business reorganization class at a law school. Danfurn LLC is a U.S. manufacturer and retailer of high-end furniture that is in financial distress following a 2007 LBO and subsequent declines in profitability in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007–08. The nearly 50-year-old company has recently blown through cash flow covenants on its $100 million senior financing facility and is seeking a restructuring of its capital structure that will allow the company to survive. Although Danfurn's lenders are hopeful that a consensual decision can be reached on how to restructure the company without resorting to a bankruptcy filing, filing for bankruptcy or even liquidating the company are very real possibilities. This case is an exercise in negotiating a consensual restructuring of a financially distressed company when stakeholders have varied incentives, legal rights, potential remedies, and interests in how the company will be managed going forward. The case discussion works best if students are divided into groups representing the different stakeholder groups—the senior lender, mezzanine lender, board, private equity owner, and founder interests—and are asked to think about how best to maximize their positions while recognizing the costs of failing to reach a negotiated outcome.